The appellant who was a respondent No. 1 in an ejectment petition filed by the present respondent No. 1 against him has filed the present appeal assailing the order of Additional District Judge, Lahore as a result of which the ejectment petition filed by the respondent No.1 was accepted and the ejectment of the present appellant was ordered on 2-4-1996.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the present respondent No. 1 filed an ejectment petition against the present appellant with the averments that he is owner of property No.E-1-843/A situated in Shah Alain Market, Lahore and a portion located in the ground floor of this property was given to the respondent No.1 in the ejectment petition on rent @ 300 p.m. On execution of a rent note dated 24-1-1984. It was further asserted that the respondent after having been put in possession of this property as a tenant defaulted in the payment of the rent with effect from January, 1992, as such liable to ejectment. It was also submitted that the respondent No. 1 has subletted the property in favour of the respondent No.2, the appellant required the premises bona fide for, personal use. The appellant on the basis of the above--said claim and ground sought the ejectment of the respondents and filed an ejectment petition. The respondents contested this petition with the clear averments that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The trial Court after framing requisite issues arising from the above-said pleading of the parties recorded the evidence and dismissed the ejectment petition on 23-1-1995. The appellant in the ejectment petition filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sargodha from where this appeal was allowed on 2-4-1996 and the ejectment of the present appellant/respondent No. 1 in the original ejectment petition was ordered. The appellant feeling himself dissatisfied with the above said order of the Additional District Judge filed the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted their arguments and the record available has been perused with their assistance. Apart from discussing the oral evidence in question, the learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my intention to a civil suit brought by the present appellant with the clear averments that the appellant in the ejectment petition practising fraud upon him got his signature on an alleged rent note and the rent note being the result of fraud be cancelled. This civil suit was contested in' between both the parties and the learned Civil Judge on 1-2-1999 dismissed the civil suit of the present appellant. The present appellant filed an appeal in this regard which was also dismissed on 24-7-1999. The appellant after the dismissal of the above said civil suit through which the rent note which is in question before this Court today did not avail any other legal remedy to have the findings of the Civil Courts set aside, the result of which is that the rent note stands admitted to have been executed by the present appellant in favour of the present respondents. Apart from it there are entries in the record of the Excise and Taxation Department wherein in the name of the present appellant is recorded as a tenant in the property.
There is another aspect of the case that it was the present appellant who denied the execution of the rent note in the ejectment petition and the present appellant at a later stage admitted the contents and execution of the rent note brought a civil suit for its cancellation to have been obtained by fraud: The present appellant also raised an argument that the property over which he is in possession is owned by him but no document in this regard has been made available on record. The number of the suit properties as E-1-843. The respondents' property is E-1-854. The appellant in his cross-examination also admitted that the document of the property over which he is in possession are with him but he did not produce those documents in evidence. The record further reveals that Excise and Taxation Department Record with regard to both these properties is maintained separately and independently. In the property No.E-1--854 the present appellant is recorded as an owner as well as the occupier whereas in the property No.E-1-843, the present appellant is shown as occupier and not as owner of the property and the name of the owner is recorded as that of the present respondent. Scanning the judgment of the Additional District Judge in this perspective, no illegality is established on record.